Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Journal of Consumer Psychology 25, 1 (2015) 113 – 119
Research Report
Can't finish what you started? The effect of climactic interruption on behavior
Daniella M. Kupor ⁎,1 , Taly Reich 1 , Baba Shiv
Stanford Graduate School of Business, 655 Knight Way, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
Received 22 October 2012; received in revised form 22 May 2014; accepted 28 May 2014
Available online 4 June 2014
Abstract
Individuals experience a greater frequency of interruptions than ever before. Interruptions by e-mails, phone calls, text messages and other
sources of disruption are ubiquitous. We examine the important unanswered question of whether interruptions can increase the likelihood that
individuals will choose closure-associated behaviors. Specifically, we explore the possibility that interruptions that occur during the climactic
moments of a task or activity can produce a heightened need for psychological closure. When an interruption prevents individuals from achieving
closure in the interrupted domain, we show that the resulting unsatisfied need for psychological closure can cause individuals to seek closure in
totally unrelated domains. These findings have important implications for understanding how consumer decisions may be influenced by the
dynamic—and often interrupted—course of daily events.
© 2014 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Interruption; Decision making; Need for psychological closure
Individuals experience a greater frequency of interruptions and
multitasking than ever before (Carrier, Cheever, Rosen, Benitez,
& Chang, 2009). For example, undergraduates are interrupted
every 2 minutes by instant messages, e-mail, and other sources of
disruption when using computers (Benbunan-Fich & Truman,
2009). Adults are also interrupted with increasing frequency—in
fact, office workers are interrupted every 5 minutes by e-mails
alone (Jackson, Dawson, & Wilson, 2001). While significant
research reveals that interruptions are ubiquitous, surprisingly
little research has examined the impact of these interruptions—
and their timing—on subsequent decisions.
Interruptions
Interruptions are conceptualized as externally-generated events
that disrupt an individual's cognitive focus on a focal task
(Corragio, 1990). Research has most frequently operationalized
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D.M. Kupor),
[email protected] (T. Reich), [email protected] (B. Shiv).
1
These authors contributed equally to this work.
interruptions as secondary tasks that individuals must complete
before they can return to a focal task, or as a mechanical failure
that disrupts a focal activity (e.g., the failure of a tape player that
prevents individuals from listening to the entirety of an audio
message) (Worchel & Arnold, 1974; Xia & Sudharshan, 2002).
Perhaps the most well-known consequence of interruptions is
the Zeigarnik effect, which suggests that uncompleted (versus
completed) tasks are better remembered (Zeigarnik, 1927). More
recently, research has begun to explore the impact of interruptions on consumer behavior. For example, Liu (2008) found that
interruptions increase consumers' choice of desirable rather than
feasible options. Recent research also reveals that interruptions
can impact consumers' affective experiences—for example,
frequent interruptions decrease consumers' satisfaction when
they shop online (Xia & Sudharshan, 2002). Nelson and Meyvis
(2008) found that the affective consequences of interruptions
depend on the valence of the interrupted task. Specifically, they
found that interruptions improve positive experiences and worsen
negative experiences (also see Nelson, Meyvis, & Galak, 2009).
In sum, while recent research has begun to explore the impact of
interruptions on consumer behavior, research to date has solely
examined the effect of interruptions on the interrupted consumer
task rather than on subsequent and unrelated consumer decisions.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.006
1057-7408/© 2014 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
114
D.M. Kupor et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 25, 1 (2015) 113–119
Interruptions and need for psychological closure
Both the ubiquity of interruptions and anecdotal experience
suggest that interruptions can occur during moments in which
individuals are relatively indifferent about whether they finish a
current activity, as well as during moments in which they are
highly eager to finish an activity. Significant literature indicates
that an individual's motivation to complete a goal-oriented
activity critically depends on his/her temporal distance from
the desired end (Henderson, Beck, & Palmatier, 2011; Kivetz,
Urminsky, & Zheng, 2006; Touré-Tillery & Fishbach, 2011).
Building on this research, we investigate whether an individual's
desire to finish an interrupted activity depends on the timing of the
interruption. Specifically, we examine whether an individual's
desire to finish an interrupted activity is heightened when an
interruption disrupts the climactic moments of an activity or task.
A climax is defined as “the most intense, exciting, or important
point of something” (Oxford Dictionaries). Phone calls, text
messages, and other sources of disruption can sometimes interrupt
the climactic moments of a variety of activities, including conversations, television shows, books, and news articles. The current
research investigates whether these climactic interruptions foster a
heightened need for psychological closure.
Significant research suggests that interruptions can generate a
need for closure. Indeed, it is well documented that individuals
are motivated to complete an activity that they have started, and
that interruptions increase individuals' desire to complete an
interrupted task (Klinger, 1975; Lewin, 1926, 1935; Martin &
Tesser, 1996; Ovsiankina, 1928). This increased desire can even
persist when individuals are permanently prevented from
finishing an activity (Carver & Sheier, 1998; Lewin, 1926;
Martin & Tesser, 1996). We posit that certain interruptions can
intensify this unsatisfied need for psychological closure.
Specifically, we hypothesize that climactic interruptions
(interruptions that disrupt the climactic moments of an activity
or task) are more likely to foster an unsatisfied need for psychological closure than interruptions that occur during non-climactic
intervals. This is because, by definition, a climactic interruption
prevents individuals from experiencing the imminent resolution
to a focal climactic build-up, which in turn may intensify
individuals’ perception that they have been left hanging by a
target event and thus increase their desire to attain closure (Beike,
Adams, & Wirth-Beaumont, 2007; Beike & Wirth-Beaumont,
2005).
An unsatisfied need for closure provokes behaviors targeted
toward the attainment of closure (Kruglanski & Webster, 1996).
Research reveals that mind-sets, desires, and goals activated
during cognitive activity in one domain can persist to influence
subsequent decisions in unrelated domains, independent of
the motivation that gave rise to their activation (for a review,
see Wyer & Xu, 2010). In a similar vein, we predict that when
a climactic interruption prevents the attainment of closure
in the interrupted domain, the resulting unsatisfied need for
psychological closure can spill over onto behavior in other
domains and impact decisions unrelated to the interrupted
activity. Specifically, given that a need for closure motivates
individuals to make a decision rather than remain in a state of
ambiguity (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994), we predict that an
interruption can increase the likelihood that an individual will
make a purchase decision rather than continue examining product
alternatives.
Overview
We present four studies investigating the effect of interruptions on subsequent behavior. Study 1 examines the effect of
the timing of the interruption of a focal activity on the
likelihood of making closure-associated purchase decisions in a
different domain. Studies 2A and 2B explore the mechanism
driving this effect. Finally, Study 3 examines whether climactic
interruptions can impact real choice behavior and explores
post-choice need for psychological closure.
Study 1
The purpose of Study 1 is to document the basic effect
of interruptions increasing the pursuit of closure-associated
decisions in an unrelated domain. Making a purchase decision
provides closure to a product search (e.g., Vermeir, Van
Kenhove, & Hendrickx, 2002). Thus, we examine whether
individuals who are unable to complete an interrupted activity
are more likely to make purchase decisions than uninterrupted
individuals. In addition, we explore the necessary conditions
for the effect to occur—chiefly, we predict that only
interruptions which disrupt the climactic moments of an
activity increase the pursuit of closure-associated decisions.
Method
Eighty-seven participants from an online pool were
randomly assigned to one of three conditions. In the Control
condition, participants watched a short comedy clip in which a
comedian relayed a childhood anecdote that culminated in a
final joke. In the Climax Interruption condition, participants
watched the same clip but experienced a video-malfunction
immediately prior to the punch line of the comedian's joke. In
the Non-Climax Interruption condition, participants watched
the same clip but experienced a video-malfunction during a
non-climactic moment of the comedian's anecdote, several
seconds before the introduction of the final joke.
In an ostensibly unrelated study, participants were then
instructed to imagine that they were shopping for several
consumer products (e.g., luggage, cake, etc.). Participants were
presented with the specifications of two items in each of five
product categories, and were asked to imagine that these were the
first two items that they encountered while shopping for the
products online. Next, participants were asked to indicate
whether they would be more likely to purchase one of the two
presented items, or whether they would be more likely to
continue looking for alternatives. Participants read that they
would not actually need to continue examining product
alternatives as part of the study, and that they should simply
report what they would choose to do if they were in the described
situation. Participants reported their choices by selecting a radio
D.M. Kupor et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 25, 1 (2015) 113–119
button labeled “Continue looking for alternatives,” “Choose
Option A,” or “Choose Option B.” The total number of times
participants chose one of the presented products was summed to
create a single index of purchase likelihood. Fifty participants did
not meet the inclusion criteria (see SOM) and thus are not
included in the study sample.
Results and discussion
An ANOVA of condition on likelihood of purchase revealed a
significant effect of condition on number of purchase decisions,
F(2,84) = 4.03, p = 0.021. Post-hoc comparisons revealed that
participants in the Climax Interruption condition (M = 2.50,
SD = 1.42) made significantly more purchase decisions than
participants in the Control condition (M = 1.48, SD = 1.12)
(Fisher's LSD: p = .007) and Non-Climax Interruption condition
(M = 1.79, SD = 1.43) (Fisher's LSD: p = .046), which did not
differ from each other (Fisher's LSD: p = .368).
In short, consistent with our hypothesis, we find that
interruptions can increase the likelihood of making purchase
decisions in domains totally unrelated to the domain in which
the interruption occurred. We further find that this effect
emerges when an interruption disrupts the climactic moments
of an activity, but not when an interruption occurs during a
non-climactic portion of the activity.
Study 2A
The first study provides evidence consistent with our
hypothesis that climatic interruptions can increase the likelihood
of making purchase decisions in unrelated domains. We
hypothesize that this increased purchase likelihood is driven by
climactic interruptions triggering a need for psychological
closure (NFPC). When an interruption prevents individuals
from achieving psychological closure in the interrupted domain,
the resulting unsatisfied NFPC increases the pursuit of
closure-associated decisions in unrelated domains. Study 2
sought to both replicate the main effect documented in Study 1,
and more importantly, establish that NFPC mediates the effect of
climatic interruption on purchase likelihood.
Perhaps the most widely used measure of need for closure is
the Need For Closure Scale (NFCS), a scale which measures
individual-differences in need for closure (Webster & Kruglanski,
1994). Because the proposed mechanism is a situational need for
psychological closure (rather than an individual difference), we
administered a situational need for psychological closure (NFPC)
scale (adapted from Beike et al., 2007).
Method
Forty-four participants from an online pool were assigned to
either the Control condition or the Climactic Interruption
condition described in Study 1. After completing the same
manipulation and product choice task as in Study 1, participants
completed a 5-item situational NFPC scale adapted from Beike
et al. (2007) (e.g., “The comedy clip is “unfinished business”
for me;” see Appendix A for the full scale). Items were
115
presented on a 7-point scale, anchored by 1 = Not at All and
7 = Very Much (α = .79). All participants met the inclusion
criteria (see SOM).
Results and discussion
An independent samples t-test revealed that participants in the
Climax Interruption condition (M = 2.64, SD = 1.53) made more
purchase decisions than participants in the Control condition
(M = 1.68, SD = 1.64; t(42) = 2.00, p = 0.053). Participants in
the Climax Interruption condition (M = 4.21, SD = 1.32) also
experienced greater NFPC than participants in the Control
condition (M = 3.21, SD = 1.47; t(42) = 2.38, p = 0.022). We
followed the procedures outlined by Hayes (2013) to examine
whether NFPC mediated the effect of condition on purchase
decisions. As predicted, NFPC mediated this effect (CI: .0791 to
.8610; see Fig. 1).
Study 2B
Studies 1 and 2A provide evidence consistent with our
hypothesis that when a climactic interruption prevents the
attainment of closure in the interrupted domain, the resulting
unsatisfied need for psychological closure can increase the
likelihood of making an unrelated purchase decision. However, is
it possible that this increase in purchase decisions is instead
driven by individuals' desire to distract themselves from the
unpleasant experience of a climactic interruption? Such an
explanation presumes that product choice is more distracting than
continued search, and is thus interesting in its own right. We
explore this possible alternative explanation in Study 2B.
Specifically, if this desire for distraction drives the current effect,
then climactic interruptions should also increase choices to engage
in distracting tasks that are not associated with closure (e.g.,
reading additional product information). Conversely, if climactic
interruptions do not impact the likelihood of continued search
when the only alternative course of action provides distraction
without closure, then such results would be inconsistent with a
distraction account. We investigate this possibility in Study 2B.
Method
One hundred forty-six participants from an online pool
were randomly assigned to either a Control condition or a
Climax Interruption condition. Participants completed the same
manipulation and viewed the product scenario described in
Study 1. However, rather than being asked to choose between
purchasing one of the presented items or continuing to search
for alternatives (as in Study 1 and Study 2A), participants were
asked to choose between reading more about the presented
items, or returning to the search at a later time. Participants
learned that they would actually read additional product
information if they chose the former option, but that they
would not continue searching for products during the survey if
they chose the latter option. Participants reported their choices
by selecting either a radio button labeled “Read more about
Option A,” “Read more about Option B,” or “I would return to
116
D.M. Kupor et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 25, 1 (2015) 113–119
*p=.05 **p<.05 ***p<.01
Fig. 1. Mediation model, Study 2A.
the search at a later time.” The total number of times
participants chose to read about one of the presented items
was summed to create a single measure of distraction seeking.
Seventy-three participants did not meet the inclusion criteria
(see SOM) and thus are not included in the study sample.
Results and discussion
As outlined previously, if the effect documented in Study 1 and
Study 2A was driven by a desire for distraction, then individuals
presented with a choice between hypothetical continued search
and reading product information (an activity that provides
distraction without closure) should be more likely to choose the
latter option if they have experienced a climactic interruption. The
results do not support this distraction account. An independent
samples t-test revealed that participants in the Control condition
(M = 2.87, SD = 1.85) and the Climax Interruption condition
(M = 3.04, SD = 1.80) were equally likely to choose to read
about the presented products, t(144) = .56, p = .575.
Study 3
Studies 1 and 2 provide evidence consistent with our
hypothesis that climatic interruptions increase the likelihood of
making unrelated purchase decisions. Study 3 sought to both
demonstrate that climactic interruptions can impact choices with
real consequences, and also explore the effect of these choices on
post-interruption NFPC. In Study 2A, NFPC was measured only
after the choice task, but not before. Therefore, Study 2A's single
post-choice NFPC measure does not provide insight into whether
choice can reduce interruption-induced NFPC. In other words,
while Study 2A suggested that interruption-induced increases in
NFPC can persist post-choice, the absence of a pre-choice
measure of NFPC precludes inferences about whether choice
provides any psychological closure. Study 3 investigates this
possibility.
As previously noted, NFPC is characterized by a desire to
quickly obtain an end state of a task or problem in order to
terminate cognitive processing related to the task or problem
(Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). As a result, individuals high in
need for closure engage in less predecision information processing
and search—and make decisions on the basis of less information—
in order to quickly obtain closure (Houghton & Grewal, 2000;
Kruglanski & Webster, 1996; Mayseless & Kruglanski, 1987).
Thus, we investigated whether climactic interruptions can lead
people to seek psychological closure by examining fewer product
alternatives in order to expedite the decision process.
Method
Eighty-one participants from an online pool were randomly
assigned to either the Control or Climax Interruption condition
described in Study 1. Participants next completed the same NFPC
scale as in Study 2A. In an ostensibly unrelated survey,
participants then learned that they would make a real product
decision, and that they would be sent the product that they chose.
Specifically, participants read the following instructions:
In this next survey, you will see a Ghiradelli chocolate on
the next page. If you want the chocolate that you see on the
next page, click the button labeled “I want this chocolate.” If
you want to keep looking and see another chocolate, click
the button labeled “I want to keep looking.” You can keep
looking until you find a chocolate that you want.
On each page you can either choose the new chocolate that
you see, a chocolate that you previously saw, or you can
choose to keep looking.
You will be sent the chocolate that you choose.
After participants read these instructions and clicked to
begin the choice task, they saw a picture of a Ghiradelli
Chocolate Square with a brief description of the chocolate
below it. Two radio buttons were presented beneath this
product information—one radio button was labeled “I want this
chocolate,” while the other was labeled “I want to keep
looking.” The choice task terminated for participants who chose
D.M. Kupor et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 25, 1 (2015) 113–119
the former option. Participants who chose to keep looking saw
a picture and description of an alternative chocolate on the
subsequent screen, and these participants could either choose to
select the pictured chocolate, choose to keep looking, or choose
the chocolate that they had previously viewed. This procedure
continued until each participant selected a chocolate, or until
participants viewed each of the available fourteen chocolates.
Participants who chose to keep looking after viewing each of
the available chocolates were routed to a screen which
informed them that they had viewed all of the available
chocolates, and prompted them to make a choice between one
of the fourteen options that they had viewed. We captured the
total number of chocolates that participants viewed before
making a decision, as well as the number of seconds that
participants spent making their decision. Immediately after
making their choice, participants completed the NFPC a second
time. At the end of the survey, participants were informed that
they would receive a bonus of 60 cents (the approximate cost of
a chocolate) rather than be sent their selected chocolate. Twenty
participants did not meet the inclusion criteria (see SOM) and
thus are not included in the study sample.
Results and discussion
An independent samples t-test revealed that participants in the
Climax Interruption condition viewed fewer chocolates than
participants in the Control condition before making their choice,
t(79) = 2.23, p = .029 (Table 1). Participants in the Climax
Interruption condition also spent fewer seconds making their
decision than participants in the Control condition, t(79) = 2.19,
p = .032 (Table 1). Together, these results suggest that climactic
interruptions can cause individuals to engage in closure-seeking
behavior—decreasing information search in order to quickly
make a decision (Houghton & Grewal, 2000; Kruglanski &
Webster, 1996; Mayseless & Kruglanski, 1987).
Further analysis revealed that participants in the Climax
Interruption condition experienced marginally higher NFPC
than participants in the Control condition immediately after the
interruption (t(79) = 1.94, p = .056), and that this difference
disappeared after the choice task (t(79) = .05, p = .964;
Table 1). Interestingly, however, interruption-induced NFPC
persisted post-choice in Study 2A. It is possible that one reason
why Study 3 and Study 2A produced these different results is
that the product choice task in Study 2A was hypothetical,
while the product choice task in Study 3 was (ostensibly) real.
Research reveals that goal states are better satisfied with real
choices than with hypothetical choices—for example, a desire
Table 1
Study 3 results.
Dependent variable
Number of chocolates searched
Search duration (seconds)
NFCS (Time 1)
NFCS (Time 2)
Condition
Interruption
M (SD)
Control
M (SD)
4.73 (3.89)
26.56 (29.02)
4.63 (1.36)
3.68 (.73)
6.95 (4.98)
44.21 (42.50)
4.05 (1.35)
3.68 (.84)
117
for prestige is better satisfied with a real product choice than
with a hypothetical product choice (Chartrand, Huber, Shiv, &
Tanner, 2008). In a similar vein, it is possible that NFPC was
better satisfied by the real product choices in Study 3 than by
the hypothetical product choices in Study 2A. Of note,
however, the interaction between condition (Climax Interruption
vs. Control) and the time at which participants completed the
NFPC scale (before vs. after the choice task) on NFPC did not
reach significance (F(1, 79) = 2.41, p = .124). We discuss the
implications of this result in the general discussion.
General discussion
Interruptions punctuate daily life with increasing frequency.
Surprisingly, no research has examined the impact of these
pervasive interruptions on unrelated subsequent choices.
The current research provides crucial insight into the influence
of interruptions on decision behavior, illustrating that they
can increase the desire for closure in unrelated domains.
We hypothesized that a need for psychological closure is
generated when a climactic interruption prevents individuals
from obtaining psychological closure in the interrupted domain,
thus causing the pursuit of closure-associated decisions in
unrelated domains. Evidence for this effect was found in
four studies. In Study 1, we found that interruptions increased
consumer decision likelihood when an interruption disrupted the
climactic moments of an activity, but not when an interruption
disrupted the non-climactic moments of an activity. Study 2
explored the mechanism underlying this effect, and revealed that
it is driven by NFPC (Study 2A) rather than a distraction-seeking
mechanism (Study 2B). In Study 3, we found that climactic
interruptions can impact real choice behavior. Together, the
current research is the first to suggest that situational need for
closure can influence behavior in a context unrelated to the
domain in which the need for closure was aroused.
Alternative accounts
In addition to providing evidence for the proposed account,
it is important to consider alternative explanations. As one
example, is it possible that interruptions induced negative affect,
and that this negative affect increased purchase decisions? We
contend that this possibility is unlikely. Indeed, research reveals
that individuals often base their evaluations of stimuli on the
affect they happen to experience during their evaluation, and that
this ambient affect thus influences decision-making (Schwarz &
Clore, 1983, 1988, 1996). Consequently, negative affect causes
individuals to evaluate products less favorably and be less likely
to purchase them (Gorn, 1982; Gorn, Goldberg, & Basu, 1993).
Hence, if interruption-induced negative affect drove the likelihood of subsequent product choice, we would expect interruptions to produce less favorable product evaluations and thus
decrease the likelihood of choice. In contrast, we observed that
interruptions increase choice. Therefore, we do not see our
findings as consistent with a negative affect explanation.
Another possible explanation of the current results is that
climactic interruptions produced depletion, which in turn drove
118
D.M. Kupor et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 25, 1 (2015) 113–119
the observed reduction in search behavior. We think this account
is unlikely to explain our results—indeed, if depletion drove the
current effects, we would expect climactic interruption to reduce
decisions to engage in the effortful task of reading additional
product information. However, as seen in Study 2B, this reduction
in effortful activity did not emerge. Nevertheless, we conducted
an additional study to examine this possibility. This study
revealed that climactic interruptions increased engagement in
closure-associated behavior, even when doing so required more
effort and time (see SOM for the full study). Thus, although it is
theoretically possible that interruptions could produce depletion,
we believe that this account does not offer a viable alternative
explanation of the current results.
Remaining questions and future directions
Interestingly, the NFPC data in Study 3 trend toward
suggesting that choices in a domain unrelated to the interrupted
task can reduce interruption-induced NFPC. However, this trend
did not reach significance. One possible interpretation of this
result is that when a climactic interruption prevents the attainment
of closure in the interrupted domain, the resulting unsatisfied
NFPC—and consequent desire to satisfy this need—activates a
more general mind-set oriented toward the pursuit of closure.
Research reveals that motivation to obtain a particular objective
in a certain domain can activate a more general mind-set that
shapes unrelated responses in unrelated domains, regardless of
whether such behaviors satisfy the original goal or motivation
(for a review, see Wyer & Xu, 2010). In a similar vein, it is
possible that an unsatisfied NFPC triggered by a climactic
interruption activates a closure mind-set, which in turn increases
the pursuit of closure-associated decisions in unrelated domains
that do not necessarily satisfy the original need for closure. We
leave this question to future research.
Also relevant to future research, we limited our examination
of climactic interruptions to an analysis of decision behavior.
However, there are a number of other consequences that warrant
empirical attention. For example, because the current research
suggests that climactic interruptions can increase the likelihood of
choosing to purchase a product rather than continuing to examine
alternatives, it is possible that these closure-motivated choices
may increase post-purchase regret. In fact, research indicates that
insufficient thinking about decision alternatives in and of itself
can increase post-decision regret, even when decision outcomes
are held constant (Das & Kerr, 2010; Pieters & Zeelenberg,
2005). To the extent that the current research suggests that need
for psychological closure may increase hasty purchase decisions,
it is possible that these decisions may increase post-decision
regret.
Conclusion
Despite the ubiquity of interruptions, there has been little or
no consideration of whether interruptions can impact consumer
decisions that are unrelated to a previously interrupted event.
The current research is the first to provide insight into the effect
of climactic interruptions on behaviors in unrelated domains.
The finding that climactic interruptions can impact behaviors
with real consequences suggests that these interruptions
may exert previously unrecognized consequences on consumer
decisions.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.006.
References
Beike, D., Adams, L., & Wirth-Beaumont, E. (2007). Incomplete inhibition of
emotion in specific autobiographical memories. Memory, 15(4), 375–389.
Beike, D. R., & Wirth-Beaumont, E. T. (2005). Psychological closure as a
memory phenomenon. Memory, 13, 574–593.
Benbunan-Fich, R., & Truman, G. (2009). Multitasking with laptops during
meetings. Communications of the ACM, 52(2), 139–141.
Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A., Rosen, L. D., Benitez, S., & Chang, J. (2009).
Multitasking across generations: Multitasking choices and difficulty ratings in
three generations of Americans. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 483–489.
Carver, C. S., & Sheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior.
Cambridge, England: Cambirdge University Press.
Chartrand, T. L., Huber, J., Shiv, B., & Tanner, R. J. (2008). Nonconscious
goals and consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2),
189–201.
Corragio, L. (1990). Deleterious effects of intermittent interruptions on the task
performance of knowledge workers: A laboratory investigation. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Das, N., & Kerr, A. H. (2010). Woulda, coulda, shoulda: A conceptual
examination of the sources of post-choice regret. The Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, 18(2), 171–180.
Gorn, G. J. (1982). The effects of music in advertising on choice behavior:
A classical conditioning approach. The Journal of Marketing, 94–101.
Gorn, G. J., Goldberg, M. E., & Basu, K. (1993). Mood, awareness, and product
evaluation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(3), 237–256.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional
Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Henderson, C., Beck, J., & Palmatier, R. (2011). Review of the theoretical
underpinnings of loyalty programs. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3,
256–276.
Houghton, D. C., & Grewal, R. (2000). Please, let's get an answer—any answer:
Need for consumer cognitive closure. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 911–934.
Jackson, T. W., Dawson, R. J., & Wilson, D. (2001). The cost of email
interruption. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 5(1), 81–92.
Kivetz, R., Urminsky, O., & Zheng, Y. H. (2006). The goal-gradient hypothesis
resurrected: Purchase acceleration, illusionary goal progress, and customer
retention. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 39–58.
Klinger, E. (1975). Consequences of commitment to and disengagement from
incentives. Psychological Review, 82, 1–25.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind:
“Seizing” and “freezing.”. Psychological Review, 103, 263–283.
Lewin, K. (1926). Vorsatz, wille, and bedurfnis [intention, will, and need].
Psychologische Forschung, 7, 330–385.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw Hill.
Liu, W. (2008). Focusing on desirability: The effect of decision interruption and
suspension on preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 640–652.
Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1996). Ruminative thoughts. In R. S. WyerJr. (Ed.),
Advances in social cognition, vol. 9. (pp. 1–47) Hillsdale, NJ, England:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Mayseless, O., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1987). What makes you so sure? Effects
of epistemic motivations on judgmental confidence. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 29, 162–183.
D.M. Kupor et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 25, 1 (2015) 113–119
Nelson, L. D., & Meyvis, T. (2008). Interrupted consumption: Disrupting adaptation
to hedonic experiences. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 654–664.
Nelson, L. D., Meyvis, T., & Galak, J. (2009). Enhancing the televisionviewing experience through commercial interruptions. Journal of Consumer
Research, 36(2), 160–172.
Ovsiankina, M. (1928). Die Wiederaufnahme unterbrochener Handlungen.
Psychologische Forschung, 11, 302–379.
Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2005). On bad decisions and deciding badly: When
intention–behavior inconsistency is regrettable. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 97, 18–30.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of
well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513–523.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1988). How do I feel about it? The informative
function of affective states. Affect, Cognition, And Social Behavior, 44–62.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1996). Feelings and phenomenal experiences.
Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, 2, 385–407.
119
Touré-Tillery, M., & Fishbach, A. (2011). The course of motivation. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 21, 414–483.
Vermeir, I., Van Kenhove, P., & Hendrickx, H. (2002). The influence of need for
closure on consumer's choice behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23,
703–727.
Webster, D., & Kruglanski, A. (1994). Individual differences in need for
cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6),
1049–1062.
Worchel, S., & Arnold, S. E. (1974). The effect of combined arousal states on
attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 549–560.
Wyer, R. S., & Xu, A. J. (2010). The role of behavioral mind-sets in goaldirected activity: Conceptual underpinnings and empirical evidence. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 20(2), 107–125.
Xia, L., & Sudharshan, D. (2002). Effects of interruptions on consumer online
decision processes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(3), 265–280.
Zeigarnik, B. (1927). Das Behalten Erledigter und Unerledigter Handlungen.
Psychologische Forschung, 9, 1–85.